PC cleared after evidence vanishes (90mph in a 30)

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

tim.100

Active Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2003
Messages
560
Car
202&463
Pc cleared after evidence vanishes
By Nick Britten
(Filed: 26/05/2005)

A police officer accused of driving at 90mph in a 30mph zone has escaped prosecution after the equipment used to check his speed disappeared.



The case against Pc Daniel Swain, 30, collapsed after a court was told that the "black box" recorder in his patrol car "was no longer in existence".

Pc Swain was driving a Vauxhall Astra patrol car through Shuttlewood, near Bolsover, Derbys, when it hit another car then crashed into a house, causing extensive damage. No one was hurt.

Pc Swain had been responding to a report of someone acting suspiciously near parked cars.

When his colleagues checked the incident data recorder in his car it showed that the vehicle had been doing 90mph just before the crash.

The Crown Prosecution Service began a prosecution for dangerous driving but after almost 18 months of legal wrangling Pc Swain walked free from court on Thursday, the day his trial was due to start.

The prosecution case was built on information stored in the black box. But Sonal Ahya, defending, told Derby Crown Court that the data recorder was potentially unreliable because it had not been re-calibrated after an earlier crash.

She said: "There is no way of checking the recorder as it is no longer in existence". No evidence was offered as to what happened to it.

A report from its manufacturers, Siemens, which suggested the black box had been accurate was presented to the court but was dismissed by the Recorder, Robert Glancy, QC, on the grounds that it was submitted too late, and he acquitted Pc Swain saying the prosecution case was flawed. The court heard that Pc Swain, from South Normanton, Derbys, was answering a call at 4.50am on Feb 20 last year, with his emergency lights flashing.

He collided with a Vauxhall Vectra in Shuttlewood and smashed into a house. The Vectra driver has been accused of careless driving and is due to go on trial at Chesterfield next month.

Another officer, Pc Glen Dent, who was following in his patrol car, claimed Pc Swain had been doing 50 to 60 mph, although his black box had not been activated so could not prove it.

After recording a not guilty verdict on Pc Swain, Recorder Glancy said: "There is nothing to suggest Pc Dent is not a reliable witness and this is not a case the prosecution will get a conviction on."

However, the case took a twist last night when Derbyshire police said that they had found the black box in another car.

Duncan Davis, spokesman for the Derbyshire police federation, said that Pc Swain, who denied dangerous driving, was still under internal investigation over issues of alleged misconduct.

He said: "The accuracy and the maintenance of the information data recorder is something that we are very concerned about." Elaine Smithurst, 59, whose home was hit by the patrol car just as she was getting into bed with husband William, 68, said she was "devastated" by the outcome.

Paul Smith, of the organisation Safe Speed, said: "This sounds like a catalogue of maladministration. Cases like this are very damaging to police-public relationships." Pc Swain declined to comment.
 
"Perverting the course of justice" springs to mind
 
Old Boys club ...
 
Here we go again....

It appears we have the same critics that really have me confused.

I am NOT discussing specific cases because again WE DO NOT know the FACTS. Knowing the facts though does not stop criticism.

Is an emergency vehicle exempt from speed limits when attending emergencies. There is a long winded definition, but I am keeping it simple.

If the answer is 'Yes', then apart from this motley bunch that wants to convict every Police Officer that does not help them, how can you convict someone for something they are exempt from??

Yes you might present a case for differing motoring offences, but your simply stating that:

"Perverting the course of justice" springs to mind"

"Does not surprise me in the slightest..."

"It must have "fallen down the stairs"

"Old Boys club ..."

etc, etc,

How many other drivers get convicted of driving offences without 'a black box'

There must be other allegations about the persons driving, if that other evidence was not strong enough then the case will collapse. The 'black box' will merely show speed, the driver was exempt from the speed limit!!!!

Is this black box going to give a visual display of what actually happened?? All the critics no doubt think it must???

How many of you critics believe that you are INNOCENT until PROVED to be guilty???

John
 
someone acting suspiciously near parked cars

There is NO justification for a police officer to drive at that speed endangering people's lives, for such a call. It was pure luck that no one was killed. If police drivers break the speed limit then they must use good judgement when doing so. Driving at 90mph in a 30 limit, hitting another car and crashing into a house, all for "someone acting suspiciously near parked cars" does not strike me as good judgement.

However, the bit which irks most people is the mysterious disappearance of the crucial evidence. How many times have we heard that one before?
 
Bugblatter said:
How many times have we heard that one before?

Hi Bugblatter,
If there is one thing that really riles me it is the 20 - 20 hiindsight brigade, but that is not the issue.

You have asked a question, and I will simply bounce it straight back.

I don't know, how many times have we heard that one before?

I have heard of numerous items of evidence going missing, and countless offenders have been found not guilty because of it but no one seems to shout.

Prosecutions bought against Police Officers are not common and the 'loss' if there actually was one will no doubt be investigated. I am certainly not condoning the disregard to human safety issue, I am merely saying that speeding is not in my opinion an offence that could be substantiated. I will repeat that, speeding and only speeding is not an offence that could be substantiated.

Also, again so what? The black box was misplaced, where was all the other evidence?

John
 
agreed John that we don't have all the facts but then we can express our opinions and in most cases disgust based on the evidence made available to us.

Like the information that was given to the court this seems little short of comedy and for any of us would certainly not get thrown out of court

1, the policeman is responding to a "report of suspicious activity near parked cars". This whilst possibly an inconvenience for the owners was certainly not recorded as an "emergency" so probably didn't justify the incredibly rapid and obviously dangerous response.

2, According to his colleagues (presumably also Police officers) the black box showed the vehicle (note it was the vehicle and not the driver blamed here) was travelling at THREE times the speed limit but we have to disregard that because even though the manufacturers say it could be accurate the defence say that it wasn't calibrated but just to make sure it can't be checked they say the box is no longer in existance - was any paperwork offered to support this ludicrous and obviously untrue claim? No, because miraculously the box has re-appeared. somebody lied to the court there in order to reduce the amount of evidence available. That is either witholding evidence or attempting to pervert the course of justice as has been mentioned already. If I lived in this force area and had been charged with speeding in the last 18 months I would certainly be looking at the possibilities of appealing. Maybe I had been clocked by the car with a suppodsedly missing and uncalibrated black box?

3, Another officer said the speed was 50-60 mph but he couldn't be sure - how ridiculous is that? Although his "evidence" alone wouldn't be enough to secure a prosecution for speeding it could have seriously contributed to a case for dangerous driving whic is after all what PC Swain was charged with.

4, The court obviously accepted that the case was flawed and that seems wrong to the man on the street. He sees the Police as a neccessary force that are here to enforce the law and safeguard the people. Things like this where the enforcers are seen to be "above the law" cause frustration and resentment.

I'll be interested to see what happens to the Vectra driver when his case comes to court after all it's unlikely there can be ANY evidence to support the charges against him can there? A black box that was lost then reappeared but couldn't be believed anyway, a policeman following who had no black box activated and who couldn't really remember the details. what's the chances of his case getting dropped on a technicality?

Andy
 
andy_k said:
agreed John that we don't have all the facts but then we can express our opinions and in most cases disgust based on the evidence made available to us.

1, the policeman is responding to a "report of suspicious activity near parked cars". This whilst possibly an inconvenience for the owners was certainly not recorded as an "emergency" so probably didn't justify the incredibly rapid and obviously dangerous response.

Hi Andy,
I totally agree that we can all express our opinions and it is to everyone's credit that we both express and sometimes listen to each others contribution without getting hot under the collar.

As I keep saying hind sight is something I really get 'up tight' over.

Reported suspicious behaviour.
Now lets first put that in some sort of perspective.

I think it was Lincolnshire where someone phoned the Police stating that someone was acting 'suspicously' outside their property. The Police turned up and found nothing untoward.

Fine, the speed limits 'might' not have been broken and it was one of many so called false alarms.

The snag was both occupants of the house\bungalow were murdered. How do you, or anyone else sitting in front of their computer know what calls are false\malicious or real?? How easy though with hind sight to accuse anyone of merely speeding.

If an accident had occurred as a direct result of bad driving on behalf of the responding officer they will indeed expect to be disciplined, both by the Police and the courts.

Please try to understand that the emergency services are there to help, protect and care for us. No one is perfect, (except those that enjoy criticising) I still cannot understand what you or anyone else is saying about the missing black box. The officer was attending something he deemed to be an emergency. Unlike us they did not know it was a false alarm, this officer had no chance of looking into the future. They were speeding, the black box would say they was speeding. It is possible the officer might admit they were speeding.

If an accident was caused by inappropriate driving then the offence is not speeding.

andy_k said:
was any paperwork offered to support this ludicrous and obviously untrue claim? No, because miraculously the box has re-appeared. somebody lied to the court there in order to reduce the amount of evidence available. That is either witholding evidence or attempting to pervert the course of justice as has been mentioned already.

I cannot comment on that because I have absolutely no knowledge of the true facts and judging by what you are alleging I would guess I am in very good company. ;)

I will briefly highlight just how accurate the press can be when reporting so called facts in a court case.

A number of years ago a dog owner was prosecuted for having a dangerous dog that bit a child.

The headlines, yes headlines stated how a German Shepherd dog had savaged a child. The truth however was slightly different. It was a Golden Labrador that actually bit the child who incidentally had two butterfly stitches to a small puncture wound.

I was so angry about this I spoke to the reporter. They merely stated that the truth did not sell papers!!!!!!!

Please do not take as gospel, what you read in the papers. Fact and fiction both begin with the letter F, but sometimes facts do not sell 'F' ing newspapers. ;) ;)

John
 
the point I was making was that if the police are to have any respect then they have to be seen to be bound by and abiding by the laws they are supposedly enforcing.

Cases like this and the other one mentioned recently suggest there is one law for them and one for us


Andy
 
andy_k said:
the point I was making was that if the police are to have any respect then they have to be seen to be bound by and abiding by the laws they are supposedly enforcing.

Cases like this and the other one mentioned recently suggest there is one law for them and one for us


Andy

If you accept what is reported in the press as accurate. No problem. Why let the facts get in the way of a better story?

:p
 
2 laws hey, one for us and one for them ..
But they are not all bad, my cousin was let off on the weekend doing 67 in a 50 zone, the mondeo st pulled him, showed him the video, told him he would ideally need to go to court, then looked at his 1.8t audi and said, well you werent going that quick, regarding how quick your motor can go, so just watch out for these cars from now on and not just marked ones, and let him off. My cousin come back and said i thought the mondeo wanted a race till the lights came on .. lol

I've also been let off in my old m3 doing 90 in a 30 in leicester .. ( 2am though ) and some of them even let me go down a no entry to chat to some women, when they found out i run the doors at clubs where they could gain free access ; )
 
Lowvento said:
I've also been let off in my old m3 doing 90 in a 30 in leicester .. ( 2am though ) and some of them even let me go down a no entry to chat to some women, when they found out i run the doors at clubs where they could gain free access ; )

I hope you complained to the Chief Constable and demanded to be reported for the offence.

One law for you and another for the rest of us. :D :D

John
 
lol @ glojo

It did cross my mind .. lol, nope its not all been good.

I got pulled twice in one day once by the same copper.
First time i was in the brabus, and he says whos car is it, i had to pause and think, surely he wasn't as thick as pig poo, well he ran the check and says i'm sorry i just though you were a little young for such a car ... later on he pulled me for smoked plates on my show vw. He slowed down when he saw it was the same driver from earlier, and says why are your plates like that, and he tried to claim they have been smoked to avoid cameras, on which i produced a speeding fine i had with a picture of my plate and said well i wouldn't get this if they were ... i still had to swap them for originals though.. but he cose not to give me the on the spot penalty.
 
Lowvento said:
2 laws hey, one for us and one for them ..

I've also been let off in my old m3 doing 90 in a 30 in leicester .. ( 2am though ) and some of them even let me go down a no entry to chat to some women, when they found out i run the doors at clubs where they could gain free access ; )


Lucky you.... I was being tailgated at 36mph on the Leicester ring road at 0800 on a Sunday morning, when I was 'had' by a mobile camera for an SP30. Actually I was on my way to the Infirmary to deal with a genuine emergency, but you can't negotiate with a cash machine.
 
Yep i was well lucky, he even goes, watch your speed and tell your mate to put his seat belt on, first thing he said when he got out was, nice car mate .. lol
 
tim.mcd said:
Lucky you.... I was being tailgated at 36mph on the Leicester ring road at 0800 on a Sunday morning, when I was 'had' by a mobile camera for an SP30. Actually I was on my way to the Infirmary to deal with a genuine emergency, but you can't negotiate with a cash machine.

I accept we have gone wayyyy off topic and I might get my wrist slapped!!! But if you were genuinely going to the 'Infirmary' to deal with a genuine emergency I would write to the Chief Constable siting the exact time and date of the emergency and highlight your speed, I would forget the tailgate issue and just state you were driving safely having regard for all the conditions at the time. Your speed was certainly not excessive and you were making safe progress. I am thinking about retained fire personnel and how they drive their private vehicles when responding simply to their pager!

I have no idea of your occupation, but if you are being called out to attend medical emergencies, has your union considered making a case for a green flashing removable roof light. I think they are only for doctors, but Plodd will be able to advise us on this. If you are going to help ease someone's pain or suffering then to me that should qualify. (particularly if I'm the one in pain or suffering ;) :eek: )

Sorry to hear about your ticket and good luck if you decide to write (you have absolutely nothing to loose)

John .
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom